or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › The Grill Room › Malaysian Airlines Flight Missing, Presumed Crashed
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Malaysian Airlines Flight Missing, Presumed Crashed - Page 8

post #127 of 165

I like the smug responses of the CNN news casts where Tom Foreman questions if it's worth spending more money to find the missing plane.

 

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2014/03/21/exp-erin-sot-foreman-malaysia-airlines-plane-search-costs.cnn.html

 

If it were his family, I'm almost certain he would not be so smug about it.

 

In the future, pilot's should probably go into a circular pattern whenever there is trouble. That should narrow down the search for planes that crash.

post #128 of 165
Sorry if this has been answered already, but if my phone has a "Find My Phone" app then why can't they put a super strong transmitter device in the plane that's sending signals for a situation like this? I'm sure they'll look into this for the future by why don't they have them already in every plane?
post #129 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by colin007 View Post

Sorry if this has been answered already, but if my phone has a "Find My Phone" app then why can't they put a super strong transmitter device in the plane that's sending signals for a situation like this? I'm sure they'll look into this for the future by why don't they have them already in every plane?

Because most of the phones were either powered off during the flight or their batteries would be dead by now.

post #130 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by colin007 View Post

Sorry if this has been answered already, but if my phone has a "Find My Phone" app then why can't they put a super strong transmitter device in the plane that's sending signals for a situation like this? I'm sure they'll look into this for the future by why don't they have them already in every plane?

 

The already pretty much have that, in the transponder and GPS.  But when the power goes due to an electrical fire, as may be the case here.....

post #131 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post

The already pretty much have that, in the transponder and GPS.  But when the power goes due to an electrical fire, as may be the case here.....

Or compromised/complicated by the plane being several miles underwater... Not sure of the signal strength needed to be detectable from the bottom of the Indian Ocean.
post #132 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post
 

Because most of the phones were either powered off during the flight or their batteries would be dead by now.

 

i meant a device in the plane.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post
 

 

The already pretty much have that, in the transponder and GPS.  But when the power goes due to an electrical fire, as may be the case here.....

 

i cant imagine they cant make something with an "indestructible" battery?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al B Tross View Post


Or compromised/complicated by the plane being several miles underwater... Not sure of the signal strength needed to be detectable from the bottom of the Indian Ocean.

 

yeah i thought that might be the issue...but we have so much technology, youd think we could develop something that strong, esp in post 9/11 aviation.

 

of course, i dont know anything about any of this, i know less about this than probably anyone else.

post #133 of 165
WHy should we spend billions of dollars to find parts of a plane and probably not even recover bodies?-Or even if we do recover parts of bodies what does that add? The plane is gone and the passengers are all dead.-Why spend the money?

What will change?-Just playing devils avocate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post

I like the smug responses of the CNN news casts where Tom Foreman questions if it's worth spending more money to find the missing plane.

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2014/03/21/exp-erin-sot-foreman-malaysia-airlines-plane-search-costs.cnn.html

If it were his family, I'm almost certain he would not be so smug about it.

In the future, pilot's should probably go into a circular pattern whenever there is trouble. That should narrow down the search for planes that crash.
post #134 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil McGleno View Post

WHy should we spend billions of dollars to find parts of a plane and probably not even recover bodies?-Or even if we do recover parts of bodies what does that add? The plane is gone and the passengers are all dead.-Why spend the money?

What will change?-Just playing devils avocate.

 

Yeah, I might agree with this.  Its tragic for sure, but there's got to be a point where its just not worth it.  If I remember correctly, it took something like 2 years and $40 million to find the Air France wreckage, and they were searching a much smaller area, much closer to shore.

 

 

Also, I found this interesting

 

Quote:

study by L-3 Aviation Recorders found that a major U.S. airline would have to spend $300 million a year for real-time recording. Many say its advantages aren't worth that cost, considering how rare airline accidents are.

“Everything is a cost-benefit analysis,” said George Bibel, a professor of physical engineering at the University of North Dakota. “But so far, investigators have never failed to find a black box.”

 

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/3/10/why-do-we-know-solittleaboutmalaysiaairlinesflightmh370.html

post #135 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil McGleno View Post

WHy should we spend billions of dollars to find parts of a plane and probably not even recover bodies?-Or even if we do recover parts of bodies what does that add? The plane is gone and the passengers are all dead.-Why spend the money?

What will change?-Just playing devils avocate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post

I like the smug responses of the CNN news casts where Tom Foreman questions if it's worth spending more money to find the missing plane.

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2014/03/21/exp-erin-sot-foreman-malaysia-airlines-plane-search-costs.cnn.html

If it were his family, I'm almost certain he would not be so smug about it.

In the future, pilot's should probably go into a circular pattern whenever there is trouble. That should narrow down the search for planes that crash.


People die all the time and your body is not you. I am sorry for their loss but that fact remains. I think it is just an excuse keep people in their jobs. Plane is gone. The reasons could matter but not that much. Let the hobbyists find it.

post #136 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil McGleno View Post

WHy should we spend billions of dollars to find parts of a plane and probably not even recover bodies?-Or even if we do recover parts of bodies what does that add? The plane is gone and the passengers are all dead.-Why spend the money?

What will change?-Just playing devils avocate.

In order to determine (if possible) the factor(s) involved in the chain of events that resulted in the mishap. From this, we try to find ways to prevent similar mishaps (whether it's mechanical or human factors or a combination of both).  But you're right--it becomes a cost/benefit decision.  But it's a lot more than just rescue/recovery of human remains.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post
 

 

Yeah, I might agree with this.  Its tragic for sure, but there's got to be a point where its just not worth it.  If I remember correctly, it took something like 2 years and $40 million to find the Air France wreckage, and they were searching a much smaller area, much closer to shore.

 

Yeah, but it answered a lot of questions.  Lessons were learned about human factors including crew coordination and training from that one.

post #137 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Missouri Swede View Post
 

In order to determine (if possible) the factor(s) involved in the chain of events that resulted in the mishap. From this, we try to find ways to prevent similar mishaps (whether it's mechanical or human factors or a combination of both).  But you're right--it becomes a cost/benefit decision.  But it's a lot more than just rescue/recovery of human remains.

 

Yeah, but it answered a lot of questions.  Lessons were learned about human factors including crew coordination and training from that one.

 

 

That's a good point.  If we can prevent a future crash and loss of another 250 lives, then its probably worth it.  

post #138 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil McGleno View Post

WHy should we spend billions of dollars to find parts of a plane and probably not even recover bodies?-Or even if we do recover parts of bodies what does that add? The plane is gone and the passengers are all dead.-Why spend the money?

What will change?-Just playing devils avocate.

It's very logical from a casual observer.  I agree with you, but for the families of those on the plane I'm guessing they want closure and to hold someone accountable which requires finding the black box and an investigation.

post #139 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Missouri Swede View Post
 

In order to determine (if possible) the factor(s) involved in the chain of events that resulted in the mishap. From this, we try to find ways to prevent similar mishaps (whether it's mechanical or human factors or a combination of both).  But you're right--it becomes a cost/benefit decision.  But it's a lot more than just rescue/recovery of human remains.

 

Yeah, but it answered a lot of questions.  Lessons were learned about human factors including crew coordination and training from that one.

 

 

That's a good point.  If we can prevent a future crash and loss of another 250 lives, then its probably worth it.  

 

One plane crash out thousands of flights does not get the chance to be investigated? Don't you think we already do a ton of checks and balances? So we find that it is human error? Can we control that? If this was the third time this had happened, I would say lets get to the bottom of this but we already are hurting financially and if we join the effort .... I just don't see the point except to appease human sentiment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil McGleno View Post

WHy should we spend billions of dollars to find parts of a plane and probably not even recover bodies?-Or even if we do recover parts of bodies what does that add? The plane is gone and the passengers are all dead.-Why spend the money?

What will change?-Just playing devils avocate.

It's very logical from a casual observer.  I agree with you, but for the families of those on the plane I'm guessing they want closure and to hold someone accountable which requires finding the black box and an investigation.


Because having someone to blame will make things all better?

post #140 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil McGleno View Post

WHy should we spend billions of dollars to find parts of a plane and probably not even recover bodies?-Or even if we do recover parts of bodies what does that add? The plane is gone and the passengers are all dead.-Why spend the money?

What will change?-Just playing devils avocate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post

I like the smug responses of the CNN news casts where Tom Foreman questions if it's worth spending more money to find the missing plane.

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2014/03/21/exp-erin-sot-foreman-malaysia-airlines-plane-search-costs.cnn.html

If it were his family, I'm almost certain he would not be so smug about it.

In the future, pilot's should probably go into a circular pattern whenever there is trouble. That should narrow down the search for planes that crash.

 

I certainly hope it's not billions of dollars!

 

There is the other aspect. . .

 

What if it was a design or manufacturing flaw in the aircraft? This could impact a trillion dollars of aircraft business at a cost of 300million USD per aircraft.

 

Plus, it's good PR for the airline industry to "care".

post #141 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleygolfer View Post
 

 

One plane crash out thousands of flights does not get the chance to be investigated? Don't you think we already do a ton of checks and balances? So we find that it is human error? Can we control that? If this was the third time this had happened, I would say lets get to the bottom of this but we already are hurting financially and if we join the effort .... I just don't see the point except to appease human sentiment.


Because having someone to blame will make things all better?

I agree with you guys, I just think it's easier to have this viewpoint when you're not personally involved.

post #142 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleygolfer View Post
 

 

One plane crash out thousands of flights does not get the chance to be investigated? Don't you think we already do a ton of checks and balances? So we find that it is human error? Can we control that? If this was the third time this had happened, I would say lets get to the bottom of this but we already are hurting financially and if we join the effort .... I just don't see the point except to appease human sentiment.

 

There aren't thousands of crashes.  The 777 has been flying for 20 years and only 4 have been wrecked.  

 

 

From wikipedia's article on the 777:

 

Quote:
 

The type's first hull-loss occurred on January 17, 2008, when British Airways Flight 38, a 777-200ER with Rolls-Royce Trent 895 engines flying from Beijing to London, crash-landed approximately 1,000 feet (300 m) short of Heathrow Airport's runway 27L and slid onto the runway's threshold. There were 47 injuries and no fatalities. The impact damaged the landing gear, wing roots and engines. The aircraft was written off.[216][217] Upon investigation, the accident was blamed on ice crystals from the fuel system clogging the fuel-oil heat exchanger (FOHE).[210] In 2009, air accident investigators called for a redesign of this component on the Trent 800 series engine.[218] Redesigned fuel oil heat exchangers were installed in British Airways' 777s by October 2009.[219]

Two other minor momentary losses of thrust with Trent 895 engines occurred in February and November 2008.[220][221] TheNational Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigators concluded that, just as on BA38, the loss of power was caused by ice in the fuel clogging the fuel-oil heat exchanger. As a result, the heat exchanger was redesigned.[210]

 

So each time they've found a problem and prevented it from happening again.  There is definitely value in that.

 

 

So you've got (1) the emotional value for the families; (2) preventing future loss; (3) the possibility of finding criminals involved in a nefarious plot associated with this; and (4) the value of feeling safe when you fly because of the insane thoroughness of the safety regulations.  I'm not saying that no cost is too great, but there is a lot of value in finding the wreckage.  

 

#4 there is pretty big IMO.  The odds of surviving a plane crash are slim.  People fly because crashes are so rare.  Because its safer to fly than take any other form of transportation.  The industry, and all industries that rely on the industry, need to protect that. There's a big value in that.  

 

And yes, I did a complete 180 on this.  

post #143 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post

There aren't thousands of crashes.  The 777 has been flying for 20 years and only 4 have been wrecked.  


From wikipedia's article on the 777:


So each time they've found a problem and prevented it from happening again.  There is definitely value in that.


So you've got (1) the emotional value for the families; (2) preventing future loss; (3) the possibility of finding criminals involved in a nefarious plot associated with this; and (4) the value of feeling safe when you fly because of the insane thoroughness of the safety regulations.  I'm not saying that no cost is too great, but there is a lot of value in finding the wreckage.  

#4 there is pretty big IMO.  The odds of surviving a plane crash are slim.  People fly because crashes are so rare.  Because its safer to fly than take any other form of transportation.  The industry, and all industries that rely on the industry, need to protect that. There's a big value in that.  

And yes, I did a complete 180 on this.  
I think you misread his post. "One crash out of thousands of flights ..."
post #144 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post


I think you misread his post. "One crash out of thousands of flights ..."

I did!  :doh:

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Grill Room
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › The Grill Room › Malaysian Airlines Flight Missing, Presumed Crashed